Past data is required for the ability to measure change. Without it you have no frame of reference from which to make conjecture or analysis.
Furthermore, without accurate analysis of change over time, your current recognition of climate "CHANGE" is meaningless because you can't measure it against anything. So you have no ability to call it change. Which means that you would then need to spend 20 or 30 years measuring CHANGE in order to obtain a framework from which to analyze whether or not anything is out of the realm of normal. I know qallout tries not to condone this sort of languge, but this is a really dumb thread statement. The term "climate change" literally has the word CHANGE in the name. Change is literally a difference of something over time. Without accuracy of past data then you have no ability to measure that.. this is ridiculous.
@vermontrevolutionary The problem is, people argue over past data to try to show that climate change is not an issue. The crux of my argument is that regardless of past data, the current state of things is problematic and needs to be changed.
@jeffery95014 how can you argue that things are problematic currently if you have nothing to weigh and measure it against? The crux of your argument has no foundation from which to base itself upon. Without past data you cannot know that anything today is problematic.
@vermontrevolutionary I think you are right in a sense, but not in another.There's actually "nothing wrong" with climate change because climate will always respond exactly to what's hapenning on Earth. Climate always got up and down in the past, got tuck in some shift to later re-change to something else. This is the basis of those who argue that's nothing wrong. And it's true.Where the real debate starts is when we start to compare all those shifts of the past with what's currently happening. And it's when we make this comparison that the truth reveals itself. And the thruth is: Never in the last hudreds of millions years, the composition of the atmosphere changed like that. The only massive extinction that can really be compared to what's hapening is the basalt flow extinction where nearly 90% of life died. Levels of gazes actually got as high as it is today, but it took 40 000+ years, and we got that in only 200 years. And the only thing that is different is our technological evolution.So past data is a double edge, whether or not we take the time to just look at partial informations or the whole thing with all possibles comparisons.
@blitzgrutel I never stated that there was anything "wrong" with climate change. I referred to Jeffery's statement of it being problematic in referential analysis to the conversation, but no where did I state that it was wrong.I am right in a sense and irrelevant to the other.
It is what will happen in the future that is of most concern with Climate Change. What is happening now, we can't really do much about, same for the past.The usefulness of historical and current data is in learning and making predictions about the future. Thus the past data is of relevance for the future which is of relevance for policy making.